SEC v. Larry Michael Parrish (ponzi schemes, 2013)

Settled

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (sec-larry-michael-parrish-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In May 2013 the SEC settled administrative proceedings against Larry Michael Parrish, barring him from the securities industry and from penny-stock offerings, after a 2012 Colorado default judgment in a case alleging he ran a Ponzi scheme that raised about $9.2 million from at least 70 investors.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

Parrish, president of the unregistered adviser IV Capital, Ltd., accepted the order through an offer of settlement. The order recounts the Colorado complaint, which alleged that from 2005 to 2010 he guaranteed 30 percent annual returns, paid about $5 million in so-called profits out of investor deposits, and took at least $780,000 for himself. The court enjoined him on September 25, 2012.

The record showed a judgment; the proceeding ended by settlement. No money is ordered in this administrative order. A different respondent's case should not borrow the Colorado judgment amount.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the document describes payments to earlier participants made from later participants' money. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2013-05-24 Administrative proceeding instituted (findings)

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEC order

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.